The irony of this story, and the reason I bring it up here, is that Cleo Fields possibly made a mistake from which recent research could have spared him. Evidence trickling in suggests that racial polarization does not rule out black victories in the sort of "minority influence" district Fields spurned. Black voters hold enough influence in primaries to push qualified candidates into the general election, and white Democrats are loyal enough to elect their party's nominee regardless.

This discovery leaves a rather disturbing puzzle, however. Previous research indicates that African-American candidates seldom win outside of racial gerrymanders (Davidson and Grofman 1994; Handley, Grofman, and Arden 1998; Lublin 1997a, 279; Lublin 1997b, 41-48). The exceptions stand out for their oddity (Lublin 1999, 184). Minorities fall short of proportional representation, despite the help of districts currently being dismantled. If voters really will support minority candidates, then why are legislatures so white? The question is critical for those seeking better "descriptive" representation of minorities, who are trying to regroup after losing both their primary policy device and the assumptions that once undergirded it. Political science should embrace that challenge. After reviewing evidence against voting polarization, I offer a framework outlining barriers that may really matter, one that could shape a vibrant research agenda.

Many whites are prejudiced. A surprising number admit this (Peffley, Hurwitz, and Sniderman 1997, 35); even more lie (Kuklinski, Cobb, and Gilens 1997, 340-47). This suspicion bleeds into political judgments. When they first see black candidates, many assume the worst (Reeves 1997), such as that the candidate is too liberal (Sigelman et al. 1995). Many declare a summary judgment against any black politician seeking high office (Williams 1989).

Political elites are aware of all this, but may misunderstand. Gut-level laboratory reactions are not real-life decisions. Voters project future behavior poorly (Gelman and King 1993). Responses to race may be particularly unreliable. LaPiere followed a Chinese couple around the country before World War II, and watched them served without incident at a series of motels and restaurants - even though the managers claimed by mail that they would not serve Asians (Allport 1979, 56). People routinely allow exceptions to their prejudices (Gilliam 1996; Peffley, Hurwitz, and Sniderman 1997, 45), and minority candidates only require one exception.

Democrats may disavow black co-partisans, but dislike "country clubbers" more. Nor is it clear that most prejudiced adults ever back Democrats, or even vote. Cameron, Epstein, and O'Halloran provide the best-known claim that the proportion of blacks needed in a district is shrinking steadily. African-American southerners apparently get even odds at 40% black (1996, 805; Epstein and O'Halloran 1999, 190). Of course, these results must be tentative: they are built from few cases, plus lots of interpolation (Lublin 1999). Yet they provide hope, and more focused studies back up the general conclusions. Bullock and Dunn (1997) surveyed recent elections where blacks won in racially competitive districts. Using ecological analysis, they show that white voters consistently throw a third of their support to African Americans, in both primaries and general elections. Coupled with high black turnout, which seldom crosses racial lines, the prospects are not bad. My own work (Voss 1998a) provides similar evidence from another angle. I show that Georgia's black Democrats performed as well as the state's white Democrats-in other districts, or for other offices. It may be modest, but it is far more than needed.

One cause for the mistaken pessimism is confusion about racial polarization. Many presume that white voters cohere in opposition to proximate blacks (Voss 1998b). Yet the evidence has always been thin that this "white backlash effect" responds to political borders (Berard 1998; Voss 1996b). Recent research indicates that whites do not shift their preferences based upon political context (Cameron, Epstein, and O'Halloran 1996; Lublin 1997b, 87-89); if anything those in racially mixed neighborhoods are most likely to stick with black voters (Voss 1996a, 1998a, 1998b). Racial redistricting creates Democratic ghettoes, wasting not just black votes but friendly white votes as well.

Minorities rarely succeed in white districts, yet voters show little grassroots resistance in practice. Political scientists should have a solution to that puzzle, but we do not. The electoral process could pose any number of hurdles to diversity - any number of obstacles, that is, to the proportional representation that would result if race were completely meaningless. Consider the following barriers, an implicit set of hypotheses that have not been set against each other:

• Blacks still suffer the lingering effects of historical discrimination, as well as any contemporary discrimination. Therefore blacks are less likely to enjoy the status or cultural capital that normally spring one into political office (Loury 1995, chap. 6). They are also less likely to have the cash for a self-financed campaign, or a built-in, deep-pocketed constituency (Corey 1998).
• The African-American experience tends to marginalize even upper-status blacks on the left end of the political spectrum (Tate 1993, 46-47), an unenviable location that few white politicians seek strategically. An ideologically distinct population of any sort would be unlikely to enjoy proportional success (King, Bruce, and Gelman 1995, 107-108). Part of the problem may be redistricting. "Opportunity districts" make it difficult for minority politicians to construct a portfolio with wider appeal. Consider Cleo Fields who, following the skewed incentives of his district, joined the Progressive Caucus. He was pro-choice, in the delegation of an extremely anti-abortion state. His environmental score from the League of Conservation Voters was three or four times as high as the oil state's overall delegation. How many talented state legislators face similar pressures?
• Black conservatives may shy away from public activity, because they fear the harsh attacks that follow. Consider Justice Clarence Thomas. Allegations of sexual harassment aside, few would covet the derision he has faced as "Uncle Thomas", such as cartoons casting him as a Republican lawn jockey. Why don't moderate blacks run?
• Activists have worked hard to communicate that minorities cannot win without gerrymanders, a pessimism that most scholarship has abetted. The motives may have been laudable, but African-American politicians now probably underestimate their chances. As Thernstrom correctly indicates, "Not enough have tried" (Lehrer 1996).
• Neither party organizations nor contributors recruit enough viable minority candidates. The Republicans, in particular, seem to nominate African Americans to fight lost causes. This effect might result from racism among the political elite. It might result from white dominance in influential social hierarchies. Or it may reflect false priors about likely white voting. Similarly, journalists may fail to cover black candidates equitably, either in terms of attention they give or spin they offer, and organizations may withhold endorsements. How serious is elite-level discrimination?
• Polarized voting could exist without any direct bias against black candidates - or even black interests, which is what matters legally (Grofman and Handley 1995, 231-33). Racial polarization instead could spring from "institutional racism" - behavior without hostile intent, but with racially disparate impact. One obvious culprit would be incumbency (Bullock 1996; Lublin and Voss 1997). The current pool of officeholders may not reflect racial attitudes of the present, but (through inertia) that of years back. It is worth noting, for example, that women are even farther from proportional representation than blacks, despite little sign of reflexive voter opposition. A less obvious possibility, but maybe more important, is the structure of social inequalities (Massey and Denton 1993; Merelman 1994). White voters unswayed by prejudice, responding to their self interest or cultural preferences, nevertheless could wind up consistently opposing the black candidate of choice (especially in the South). Such a gap might frustrate the political desires of minority citizens, but would not hinder (over the long term) the fortunes of political entrepreneurs who happen to possess dark skin. Is the problem one of class or culture politics, rather than one of race?

Knowing the source of inadequate minority representation would assist policy makers in determining which remedies for vote dilution are effective, which extraneous, and which downright harmful. Consider the possibility that barriers two and three are dominant. Someone genuinely interested in increasing the minority presence in governmental institutions could concentrate, say, on recruiting black moderates. More usefully, drawing districts friendly to minority politicians would not require unconstitutional racial redistricting; permissible partisan or ideological gerrymanders may suffice. What about barriers four and five, elite discrimination? Policy solutions might include broadening the availability of campaign resources, or holding the political parties accountable for recruiting a diverse set of candidates for competitive districts. Any of these options might be harder to sell politically than segregating voters by race, but mere convenience has never been considered a compelling justification for race-conscious policy-and right now the policy instrument of choice is not surviving judicial scrutiny. At a minimum, political science ought to offer guidance so that activists would know which policies are most likely to help.

I end where I began, with former U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields. I said that Fields epitomizes the turmoil within redistricting policy. However, to me he also represents the tragedy of our shaky progress toward legislative diversity. I worked in the Louisiana Senate in 1990, and Fields shared a desk with my employer. From that vantage point I observed the public side of his representative work. I saw how he dealt with black constituents, his politeness and respect. I saw their comfort, in body language and eye contact. I saw old women, opponents of abortion, wagging their fingers in his face angrily but confidently. I compared those exchanges to those with another Baton Rouge liberal, a white man representing another heavily black district. His votes were right, but his "representation" was simply not the same. This personal experience convinced me viscerally of legislative diversity's importance, a view many share. Conviction, however, is not the same as resolution. The task at hand is to find the best way to reach that policy goal.

The author thanks Chuck Bullock, Bernard Grofman, and David Lublin for advice and insight on conference papers from which this work draws, the University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences for research support, and Kathleen Elliott, Gareth J. Voss, Corrine Elliott, and Burdett Loomis for extreme patience in face of a hard drive crash. All the mistakes are mine.

Allport, Gordon W. [1954]. 1979. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MS: Addison-Wesley. 25th Anniversary edition.

Berard, Stanley P. 1998. "Racial Context and White Attitudes in the South: Reexamining Racial Threat." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.

Bullock, Charles S., III. 1996. "Incumbency, Not Race, Wins in the South." Newsday: A41. Nov. 13, Nassau and Suffolk edition.

Bullock, Charles S., III, and Richard E. Dunn. 1997. "The Demise of Racial Redistricting and the Future of Black Representation." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, D.C.

Cameron, Charles, David Epstein, and Sharyn O'Halloran. 1996. "Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?" American Political Science Review 90(December):794-812.

Corey, James W. 1998. "Majority-Minority Districts and Campaign Finance: An Equal Playing Field?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta.

Davidson, Chandler and Bernard Grofman, eds. 1994. Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act 1965-1990. Princeton University Press.

Epstein, David, and Sharyn O'Halloran. 1999. "A Social Science Approach to Race, Redistricting, and Representation." American Political Science Review 93(March):187-91.

Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. 1993. "Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes are So Predictable?" British Journal of Political Science 23(October):409-451. 

Gilliam, Franklin D., Jr. 1996. "Can Media Cues Change Thinking About Race?: An Experimental Study of Television News Crime Coverage." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco.

Grofman, Bernard and Lisa Handley. 1995. "1990s Issues in Voting Rights." Mississippi Law Journal 65:205-70.

Handley, Lisa, Bernard Grofman, and Wayne Arden. 1998. "Electing Minority-Preferred Candidates to Legislative Office: The Relationship Between Minority Percentages in Districts and the Election of Minority-Preferred Candidates." In Race and Redistricting in the 1990s, ed. Bernard Grofman, 13-38. New York: Agathon Press.

King, Gary, John Bruce, and Andrew Gelman. 1995. "Racial Fairness in Legislative Redistricting." In Classifying By Race, ed. Paul E. Peterson, 85-110.

Kuklinski, James H., Michael D. Cobb, and Martin Gilens. 1997. "Racial Attitudes and the 'New South'." Journal of Politics 59:323-49.

Lehrer, James. 1996. "Politics of Race." Newshour. Transcript No. 5716. Dec. 9.

Loury, Glenn C. 1995. One By One From the Inside Out: Essays and Reviews on Race and Responsibility in America. New York: Free Press.

Lublin, David. 1997a. "The Election of African Americans and Latinos to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1972-1994." American Politics Quarterly 25:269-86.

Lublin, David. 1997b. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lublin, David. 1999. "Racial Redistricting and African-American Representation: A Critique of 'Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?'" American Political Science Review 93(March):183-86.

Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 1997. "Boll-Weevil Blues: The Partisan Impact of Voting Rights Law in the 1990s." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC; and the Stanford Law Review Symposium on Law and Politics.

Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Merelman, Richard M. 1994. "Racial Conflict and Cultural Politics in the United States." Journal of Politics 56:1-20.

Peffley, Mark, Jon Hurwitz and Paul M. Sniderman. 1997. "Racial Stereotypes and Whites' Political Views of Blacks in the Context of Welfare and Crime." American Journal of Political Science 41:30-60.

Reeves, Keith. 1997. Voting Hopes or Fears? White Voters, Black Candidates, and Racial Politics in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sigelman, Carol K., Lee Sigelman, Barbara J. Walkosz and Michael Nitz. 1995. "Black Candidates, White Voters: Understanding Racial Bias in Political Perceptions." American Journal of Political Science 39(February):243-66.

Tate, Katherine. 1993. From Protest to Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Voss, D. Stephen. 1996a. "Beyond Racial Threat: Failure of an Old Hypothesis in the New South." Journal of Politics 58(November):1156-70.

Voss, D. Stephen. 1996b. "Familiarity Doesn't Breed Contempt: A Rejoinder to 'Comment.'" Journal of Politics 58(November): 1181-83.

Voss, D. Stephen. 1998a. "Black Incumbents, White Districts: An Appraisal of the 1996 Congressional Elections in Georgia and Florida." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta.

Voss, D. Stephen. 1998b. "Racial Polarization and Realignment in the New South: Three Explorations of White Backlash." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Boston.

Williams, Linda F. 1989. "White/Black Perceptions of the Electability of Black Political Candidates." National Political Science Review 2:45-64.